Stating their case in a powerful op-ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal, William Armstrong, president of Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, Colorado; Ken Smith, president of Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; and Joe Aguillard, president of Louisiana College in Pineville, Louisiana say their suit is focused on the abortifacients that must be covered under the mandate.
"The administration's mandate that religious employers provide coverage of abortion-inducing drugs for their faculty, staff, and students is a bridge too far in America," the presidents write.
"This 'conscience tax' is a blatant violation of the freedoms of religion and speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by federal laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This mandate would be unjust even if it applied only to those who accept government funding, but it does much more than that. It applies to private, religious employers just because they exist in American society, regardless of whether they receive government funding."
The article specifically states that their suit is not targeting contraception, but abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486 and other FDA approved drugs that cause abortions. Even though some of these drugs are classified by the government as "contraceptives," the drugs' own labeling admits that they act to destroy life after conception. The presidents call the requirement to provide insurance coverage for these methods "abhorrent and unacceptable."
"Though our lawsuits are focused on the abortion-inducing drugs, we also respect the religious freedom of Catholics and others who do not want to facilitate access to contraception generally," they write. "The government does not have the right to tell anyone that they must sacrifice their religious freedoms and violate their consciences just to participate in American society."
They also dismiss the excuse given by defenders of the mandate that exemptions can't be granted to those whose religious convictions prevent them from participating because the Affordable Care Act is "generally applicable" and applies to all.
"But the act is already riddled with exemptions, except to respect our consciences," they contend. "It exempts the Amish, offers thousands of waivers to small businesses, grandfathers certain plans, and exempts churches if they only serve their own members. But the religious schools we represent are somehow not religious enough, according to the government. We trust that such an obviously bad argument will not succeed in court."
The administration's promise to pass an additional rule shifting the mandate's financial burdens to our insurers is also unacceptable.
" . . . (E)ven if a new rule were enacted and our insurers agreed not to pass along the costs—a dubious proposition at best—it would only show that the president has missed the moral point," the presidents write.
"Our colleges will still be forced to provide plans that directly enable coverage of drugs and services to which we object on religious grounds. It would be like forcing us to provide cable television to our students, but alleging that the cable company, 'not us,' will provide the Playboy Channel for 'free.' We do not accept this shell-game theology, and the government cannot force us to adopt its conscience instead of ours."
Thus, they have joined forces with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Alliance Defense Fund to challenge the mandate in federal court.
"We desire to serve both God and country, and we educate students who are prepared to serve their country and society out of love for and obedience to Christ," they write.
"But in the end, as one of us has recently stated, we only have one Lord, and He does not reside in Washington, D.C."
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
